Karnataka High Court
M/S Sri Bhagya Fish Seed Farm vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 January, 2018
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A.S.Bopanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.60561/2016 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S SRI BHAGYA FISH SEED FARM
REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
MR. C NATARAJU
SALUHUNASE VILLAGE
SUGURU POST, DHARMAPURA HOBLI
HIRIYUR TALUK
CHITRDURGA DISTRICT
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADV. FOR
SRI SHIVAKUMAR N, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
PODIUM BLOCK
VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWERS
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES
CIRCLE-2
VANIVILAS SAGAR
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572 144
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K P YOGANNA, HCGP.)
-2-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER 06.09.2016 AT
ANNEX-L ISSUED BY R-3; DIRECT R-1 TO CONTINUE /
COLLECT THE LEASE AMOUNT AS PER 2006 FISHING
POLICY AT ANNEX-C AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure 'L') and also the order dated 29.12.2016 at Annexure 'M' to the petition. The petitioner in that light is seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to continue to collect the lease amount as per the 2006 Fishing Policy and allow the petitioner to harvest the fish for a period of five years commencing from 2017-18.
2. The respondents have filed their objection statement. In that background having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, I have perused the petition papers.
-3-
3. Though contentions are urged in the instant petition, what is necessary to be taken note is that the petitioner was before this Court at an earlier instance in W.P. No.16180/2015 since certain dispute had arisen with regard to the nature in which the license fee had been demanded by the respondent. This Court while disposing of the petition through the order dated 31.03.2016 had taken into consideration the demand that had been made by the respondents through the order dated 13.02.2015 and in that view while taking note that the new Fishing Policy had come into effect subsequent to 2015-16 was of the opinion that the lease rentals was to be collected at the old rate for the period prior to 2015-16 and at the new rate subsequent thereto. Accordingly, it was ordered that the lease rentals at the new rates be paid subsequent to 2015- 16 and at the old rate up to 2015-16 and had in that light permitted that the petitioner could carry on the fishing activities up to the year 2018-19. Since according to the petitioner the same had not been permitted, the petitioner was before this Court and in -4- that regard since through the order dated 29.12.2016 the license/lease was terminated, the same has also been raised as a ground to assail the same in the instant petition though the instant petition was initially filed prior to the termination order. It is in that view, the termination order dated 29.12.2016 is also assailed in this petition at Annexure 'M'.
4. In justification of the order of termination, the respondents in their objection statement have referred to the consideration made by them pursuant to the earlier direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.16180/2015 and in that light have pointed out that the amount as payable pursuant to the clarification as made by this Court was not paid by the petitioner and therefore, the continuation of the lease period up to 2018-19 as permitted by this Court would not arise.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however contend that the payment of the amount by the petitioner would not arise till a decision is taken by the Committee where under the petitioner is required to be -5- permitted to procure and leave the fishlings to the tank concerned.
6. Such contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted by this Court at this point in time when it is seen that the petitioner had not paid the amount despite order of this Court. It is to be noticed that when the petitioner was before this Court in the earlier writ petition in W.P. No.16180/2015, this Court had taken note of the manner in which the payment was required to be made. The same was not conditional in any manner and it was indicated therein that if the amount as determined is paid, the lease period was to continue up to the year 2018-19. The very nature of the contention as put forth by the petitioner that the amount has not been paid as the order permitting the fishlings being put into the pond have not been made, would indicate that the petitioner had not taken the benefit of the order by complying the requirement. In any event, subsequent thereto the local fishermen have been permitted to fish in the pond and -6- even if the contention of the petitioner stating that the said period has also come to an end is taken note, an order to permit the lease which has already been terminated by way of a fresh grant at this point would not arise. If at all the claim of the petitioner that the amount for the earlier period had been paid but no benefit has been harvested by them is to be taken note, such contention would only arise if the petitioner was to initiate appropriate proceedings to claim damages against the respondents for alleged loss caused, but in any event keeping in view the nature of the prayer in the instant petition to continue the lease is prayed, such benefit in a petition of the present nature cannot be granted to the petitioner. Therefore, leaving open the contention to that extent, no benefit could be granted to the petitioner in this petition.
The petition accordingly being devoid of merit, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS/bms